1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 Candy R., Case No. 2:24-cv-00927-NJK

7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. [Docket No. 40] 9 Frank Bisignano, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to the 12 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Docket No. 40. 13 Although Plaintiff’s fee request appears to be unopposed, the Court has an independent 14 obligation to review the reasonableness of the fee award. See, e.g., Bradley V. v. Kijakazi, 2021

, at *1-3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021); Atunez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,

4075830, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 13, 2017); Keyser v. Astrue,

, at *3 (D. Ore. Jan. 17 10, 2012); Lucas v. White,

(N.D. Cal. 1999). Fees awarded under the 18 EAJA are determined based on the lodestar approach, except that the hourly rates are capped unless 19 the Court in its discretion determines otherwise. See Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690

(9th Cir. 2012); see also

(d)(2)(A). The lodestar analysis 21 includes consideration of the degree of success obtained. Hensley v. Eckerhart,

, 436 22 (1983). Courts have reduced fee awards in the social security context when the remand order is 23 limited. See, e.g., Guenther v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, 1026-27 (W.D. Wash. 24 2021). 25 In this case, the Court affirmed the ALJ’s mental health findings and remanded for further 26 consideration of Plaintiff’s physical limitations. Docket No. 38 at 4-10. The instant motion for 27 attorney’s fees does not address whether the fee award should be reduced given that circumstance. 28 1 No later than November 21, 2025, Plaintiff must file a supplemental brief of no more than 2|| five pages explaining whether the fee award should be reduced and/or proposing an appropriate 3] reduction to account for the circumstances of this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED 5 Dated: November 12, 2025 , Nancy J. Koppe 7 United StatesMagistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28